Christian Ethics vs. Secular Ethics Regarding The Notion of 'The Good'

[John21652]

Although your hearing vs seeing remark simply proves you are being difficult, I will play along.

First up, an apology for ignoring you. I seemed to have ‘lost’ this thread in the great scheme of things that is CAF.

Secondly, I was not trying to be difficult. I was simply responding to the words onscreen. Nothing more and nothing less.

I

n order to accept an argument, or be persuaded, an agreement must exist on the validity of premises. Thus in the classic syllogism;
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal
we can only accept the conclusion if we accept the premises. If we do not accept them we will not accept the argument. It follows rationally that in order to be persuaded the same criteria exists. Are you with me so far?

Why wouldn’t I be with you?

In terms of arriving at conclusions, in particular with regard to religious conclusions, I’d rather we use inductive logic. You wouldn’t argue that inductive logic is invalid reasoning, would you? So let’s dispense with the syllogisms and examine the evidence. You still with me?

In Catholic philosophy, at least according to my understanding of Thomas Aquinas, there are essentially two kinds of knowledge or truths. Truths known from reason and truths known from revelation.

There are many different types of reasoning. Comparative reasoning: comparing one thing against another. Conditional reasoning: using if…then… Criteria reasoning: comparing against established criteria. Decompositional reasoning, which is understanding the parts to understand the whole. Deductive reasoning, which involves starting from the general rule and moving to specifics. Inductive reasoning, which, I submit, is how most humqn knowledge is arrived at and involves starting from specifics and deriving a general rule. There is Systemic reasoning, in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. There is, of course, your favourite, Syllogistic reasoning, which is drawing conclusions from premises. An important form of reasoning is Abductive reasoning and it sometimes surprises people with the conclusions. Conclusions that are not always intuitive, but based on a sophicticated reasoning method, nevertheless.

You still with me?

Let us think about these two kinds of truths. For the purposes of argument and persuasion, truths known from reason are superior to truths known from revelation.

Now, how can we validate that?

Why? Because revelation is an experience particular to the person to whom that truth is revealed. That does not mean the truth itself is less valid. It only means that truth that comes from reason can be more easily shared.

You are maiking too many assumptions. Firstly, you are assuming that revelation only happens to individuals. Evidence suggests otherwise. Secondly, you are assuming that the ‘sharingness’ of information is somehow related to how the information is collected, or arrived at. I’m not sure I see the link.

You might retort that not everyone is shown the face of God while riding a donkey across the desert, but somehow the truth of that revelation was shared with other people. Yes that is true. But these other people can only accept that truth if either that truth meets the standard of reasonableness they accept independent of revelation, or they themselves have that truth revealed to them. There is no other way.

. Revelation does not necessarily require that someone “see the face of God”. Revelation can also be a sudden inspiration. A Eureka moment, if you like. Remember, there are various forms of reasoning!

If we define the secular world as those who do not accept the legitimacy of reveled truth then we must accept that attempts at argument or persuasion that depend upon revealed truth will not be successful unless that revealed truth can also be presented by means of reason.

In general terms, that is possibly true. Science and scientific discoveries are ‘revealed truths’, are they not? Science involves the revelation of ‘secular’ truths to a ‘secular’ audience. I’d suggest the transmission paths are the same for secular and religious truths.

Put simply arguments with premises based solely upon revealed truth will not be a accepted because the premises are not agreed upon. So we can clearly see that if a Catholic wishes to persuade someone regarding anything they must make their argument only on the basis of reason, not revelation. This has nothing to do with the actual legitimacy of the truth, but rather its ability to persuade

Again you are making an assumption. Your assumption is that revelation is somehow divorced from reason. Not necessarily true.

Now why did I say Catholic philosophy does not derive from reason? It has to do with which is more important; reasoned or revealed truth. To a religious person revealed truth always trumps reasoned truth. This because revealed truth comes from God; who is perfect. Therefore reason can only be used to support those truths known from revelation. It can never be used to reject those truths. Reason is subordinate to revelation. So Catholic philosophy must ultimately derive from revelation not reason. There is of course plenty of reasoning done in support of those revealed truths, but that reasoning is not independent of the already accepted revealed truth. And it never can be

Excuse me if I correct you here, but reason is never subordinate to revelation. Reason is used in various ways to anaylise revelation. Not all so called revelations are accepted as authentic. Catholic philosophy, you see, is entirely reliant upon reason. Right reason gives valid conclusions in all philosophy.

 

[Ender]

I can not imagine how I could be any clearer. This is actually starting to annoy me.

For what it’s worth, I think your argument is quite clear. I may not agree with all of it but I think it is well presented

All that I have said is that Catholic ethics primarily derives from a belief in God and other authoritative sources. That does not exclude reason from Catholic ethical considerations. I have only claimed that reason is not an essential component of Catholic ethics.

It is surely true that belief in God is the starting point for all Catholic ethics but claiming that reason is not an essential component of that ethic goes too far.

“… the truth conferred by Revelation is a truth to be understood in the light of reason.”
*"… faith accepts divine truth as it is. But the gift of wisdom enables judgment according to divine truth."
“To believe is nothing other than to think with assent … Believers are also thinkers: in believing, they think and in thinking, they believe… If faith does not think it is nothing.”
*(Fides et Ratio)

That they believe certain things and hold certain views because that is what God, the Church, or the Bible have told them.

This is clearly true.

*“The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith.” *(Ibid)

Catholicism has a trememdous intellectual tradition. But, and this can not be denied, reason is not the primary source of Catholic ethics. God, the Church, and the Bible are the primary source.

God is the source of all ethics but understanding his truths requires reasoning; the two are inseparable.

As the secular world, well specifically the non religious secular world, does not believe those things, at least not to the point of relying on them, it can not use them as the source of its ethical decisions.

True, it does little good to cite God as the source of morality to someone who disbelieves he exists. Debates with atheists have to be based on logic alone.

The OP wanted to know how Catholicism influences the ethics of the secular world. It does so when its ethics can be understood without depending on the existence of God or the supremecy of the Church or the Bible.

It also influences society simply by having created an ethical system that people are brought up in; we come to accept the morality of behaviors because of the influence of others. It is only as we grow older and can seriously intellectualize our beliefs that we could base them on reason alone. The problem with logic, however, is that using it can only guarantee a logical conclusion; it cannot guarantee a correct one.

Ender

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Can you demonstrate any substantive difference between the ideas of “secular ethics” and “personal opinions”?

Hello? Do you intend to answer the question or are we supposed to just accept the assertion that such a thing as secular ethics exists because you say so?

 

[CatSci]

Can you demonstrate any substantive difference between the ideas of “secular ethics” and “personal opinions”?

There’s this thing I have called “Empathy”. I realize that other people feel things like I do. When something hurts me, I can see that it can hurt others too. I have a desire to not do the things that hurt me to other people. I don’t want to cause the same pain to others that I feel, and try to avoid, by doing some particular thing.

Empathy is required for compassion which is needed for love. If you avoid hurting others, not through empathy, but to avoid the repercussions, then you lack the necessary requirements for loving others.

You also said that your ethics follow the opinions of God, but you’re just assuming that they are the opinions of God. You can’t show that your ethics have any difference from personal opinion either.

 

[mcteague]

For what it’s worth, I think your argument is quite clear. I may not agree with all of it but I think it is well presented
It is surely true that belief in God is the starting point for all Catholic ethics but claiming that reason is not an essential component of that ethic goes too far.

“… the truth conferred by Revelation is a truth to be understood in the light of reason.”
*"… faith accepts divine truth as it is. But the gift of wisdom enables judgment according to divine truth."
“To believe is nothing other than to think with assent … Believers are also thinkers: in believing, they think and in thinking, they believe… If faith does not think it is nothing.”
*(Fides et Ratio)
This is clearly true.

*“The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith.” *(Ibid)
God is the source of all ethics but understanding his truths requires reasoning; the two are inseparable.

True, it does little good to cite God as the source of morality to someone who disbelieves he exists. Debates with atheists have to be based on logic alone.
It also influences society simply by having created an ethical system that people are brought up in; we come to accept the morality of behaviors because of the influence of others. It is only as we grow older and can seriously intellectualize our beliefs that we could base them on reason alone. The problem with logic, however, is that using it can only guarantee a logical conclusion; it cannot guarantee a correct one.

Ender

I do not disagree with anything you have said. I think the relationship between revelation and reason in Catholicism is hard to pin down in a quantifiable manner. It is certainly to Catholicism credit that it attempts to understand and explain its beliefs through reason. And it has a long tradition of attempting to do so. It might be better for me to say revelation is more essential. Rather than saying reason is not essential. But it is a little difficult for me because a person could have no knowledge of the reasons behind Catholic philosophy and still be Catholic. That can not be said of things that come from revelation.

It is certainly better, in my view, for people to understand the reasons behind their beliefs.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

… but you’re just assuming that they are the opinions of God.

Insofar as I accept the veracity of the books in the collection we call the Bible. Yes, I am assuming that what G-d said in the various books, is what His opinion is. Unless you are telling me that you have some adequate reason to doubt the veracity of the Biblical books? If so, that is an entirely different conversation.

You can’t show that your ethics have any difference from personal opinion either.

Finally, at least someone admits that secular ethics are really just personal opinions! Now, as to the idea that my ethics are personal opinions, I freely admit they are. Yet they are not my personal opinions, they are G-ds opinion. The difference is that a persons opinions are based on the incomplete and finite understanding that a human is incapable of. G-ds is based on the perfect understanding of an omniscient Being. Which is why we should not make up the idea of “secular ethics”. Further, what authority gives people the right to make up their own ethics? G-ds right is one of an owner and Creator, it is a legitimate authority. Humans did not create the universe, or even themselves. They are asserting an illegitimate right to live as they wish, not as G-d instructs. Beyond that the only difference I have ever noted between the so-called secular and Christian ethics, is the denial of Christian sexual ethics. I hardly think that hedonistic desires form a rational basis for the acceptance of personal opinions as a moral standard.

 

[mcteague]

Hello? Do you intend to answer the question or are we supposed to just accept the assertion that such a thing as secular ethics exists because you say so?

Sorry, I did not mean to ignore you. Just got missed with other stuff.
The claim that secular ethics is indistingushable from personal opinion is dubious because the exact same statement can be made regarding religious ethics.

If you are asking whether there are ethical systems which do not depend on religion I would refer you to Kant, Mills, Rawls, and Aristotle. None of their ethical philosophy requires a belief in God. I am sure there are others.

If you are arguing that because of the significant place of Christianity in the last 2000 years a purely secular ethics can not exist then it would be hard to respond as that is a definitional distinction.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The claim that secular ethics is indistingushable from personal opinion is dubious because the exact same statement can be made regarding religious ethics…

I address this claim in the one immediately above. But if we assume there is no G-d, than I fail to see how any of these secular systems are anything more than the personal opinions of the authors. My point being that if one man can decide for himself what is moral, then all men have an equal right, including those who would find it moral to do anything they want at anyone’s expense. So it is crucial to be able to demonstrate a difference in the idea of secular ethics and personal opinions. Or there is no reason to worry about ethics at all.

 

[Ender]

The claim that secular ethics is indistingushable from personal opinion is dubious because the exact same statement can be made regarding religious ethics.

I’m not sure this is the case; I don’t think a good argument can be made that a faith ethic is personal opinion. It is surely true that it is a personal choice to adopt a particular religion, but once that decision is made the the only choices left are in the application of moral laws one has accepted; the definition of those laws, unlike with secular ethics, is no longer left to the individual.

If you are asking whether there are ethical systems which do not depend on religion I would refer you to Kant, Mills, Rawls, and Aristotle. None of their ethical philosophy requires a belief in God. I am sure there are others.

The question (to me at least) is not whether moral systems can exist without God but whether morality itself can exist without God. It seems to me that if God exists then both the religious and the atheist can behave morally but if God does not exist then neither can behave morally because morality itself cannot exist.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I think the relationship between revelation and reason in Catholicism is hard to pin down in a quantifiable manner. It is certainly to Catholicism credit that it attempts to understand and explain its beliefs through reason. And it has a long tradition of attempting to do so. It might be better for me to say revelation is more essential. Rather than saying reason is not essential. But it is a little difficult for me because a person could have no knowledge of the reasons behind Catholic philosophy and still be Catholic. That can not be said of things that come from revelation.

It is certainly better, in my view, for people to understand the reasons behind their beliefs.

It is incorrect to believe that philosophical beliefs require reason and Christianity does not. What is different between them isn’t whether or not they employ reason but is in the different assumptions on which they are based. They start from different places but employ the same means to arrive at their conclusions.

Christianity assumes God exists and has revealed himself to man. Philosophers assume God does not exist and posit their own first principles but all systems start from a point that is similar in this respect: the basic assumption on which their system is based is unprovable. Beyond that, the notion that Catholicism is somehow less reasonable than other philosophies is belied by the fact that, after 2000 years, it is still involved in analysis and debate over moral truths (think Humanae Vitae). The existence of the Summa Theologica alone should be sufficient to refute the notion that reason is ancillary to faith.

Ender

 

[CatSci]

Finally, at least someone admits that secular ethics are really just personal opinions!

I explained to you how secular ethics can work without being based on personal opinion in the message you quoted me from. But you didn’t quote or reply to that part and instead focused on the opposite. Wierd. Here it is again:

“There’s this thing I have called “Empathy”. I realize that other people feel things like I do. When something hurts me, I can see that it can hurt others too. I have a desire to not do the things that hurt me to other people. I don’t want to cause the same pain to others that I feel, and try to avoid, by doing some particular thing.”

Insofar as I accept the veracity of the books in the collection we call the Bible. Yes, I am assuming that what G-d said in the various books, is what His opinion is.

Correction, in the various books are what people said that God said.

Now, as to the idea that my ethics are personal opinions, I freely admit they are. Yet they are not my personal opinions, they are G-ds opinion.

You don’t know that.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I explained to you how secular ethics can work without being based on personal opinion in the message you quoted me from. But you didn’t quote or reply to that part and instead focused on the opposite. Wierd. Here it is again:

“There’s this thing I have called “Empathy”. I realize that other people feel things like I do. When something hurts me, I can see that it can hurt others too. I have a desire to not do the things that hurt me to other people. I don’t want to cause the same pain to others that I feel, and try to avoid, by doing some particular thing.”

I did answer. Let me show post it again.

Finally, at least someone admits that secular ethics are really just personal opinions!

You don’t seem to understand that it is a personal opinion that we should base morality on a sense of empathy. Even a sense of empathy itself is personal opinion. I assure you there are prisons around the planet full of people that don’t share the sense of empathy you have, or even care about it. I wonder if you even realize you’re just making the golden rule argument.

Correction, in the various books are what people said that God said.

How does that correct my statement?

Insofar as I accept the veracity of the books in the collection we call the Bible. Yes, I am assuming that what G-d said in the various books, is what His opinion is.

Let me simplify it. I believe that Bible is the inspired word of G-d. As all other Catholics must by definition. Don’t you? By the way, what grade did you say you were in?

 

[CatSci]

You don’t seem to understand that it is a personal opinion that we should base morality on a sense of empathy.

You’ve misunderstood… I didn’t say we should base morality on a sense of empathy.

I have empathy. And, along with that, I have a desire to avoid causing harm to others because I don’t like it for myself. Those two things form a morility independent of presonal opinion.

I assure you there are prisons around the planet full of people that don’t share the sense of empathy you have, or even care about it.

They’re called Sociopaths… You exhibit similiar behavior when you say that if you found out there was no god then you wouldn’t have a problem mistreating people.

I wonder if you even realize you’re just making the golden rule argument.

Well, not just, but so what?

Correction, in the various books are what people said that God said.

How does that correct my statement?

You said that god said something in the various books but what is in the books is what people said that god said.

Let me simplify it. I believe that Bible is the inspired word of G-d. As all other Catholics must by definition. Don’t you?

Yes.

By the way, what grade did you say you were in?

I’m not in school. I graduated from college.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You’ve misunderstood… I didn’t say we should base morality on a sense of empathy.

It looks like that is exactly what you meant in this quote. Let me bold exactly what you did say that.

I explained to you how secular ethics can work without being based on personal opinion in the message you quoted me from. But you didn’t quote or reply to that part and instead focused on the opposite. Wierd. Here it is again:"There’s this thing I have called "Empathy". I realize that other people feel things like I do. When something hurts me, I can see that it can hurt others too. I have a desire to not do the things that hurt me to other people. I don’t want to cause the same pain to others that I feel, and try to avoid, by doing some particular thing."

Let me guess, the next claim will be something like I didn’t say we should, I said we could. Hiow does that change the fact that secular ethics amount to personal opinions? It doesn’t.

I have empathy. And, along with that, I have a desire to avoid causing harm to others because I don’t like it for myself. Those two things form a morility independent of presonal opinion.

Your empathy and your desire to use it as a basis for morality, are both your personal opinions, not necessarily shared by anyone else.

They’re called Sociopaths…

Just because people may not share your opinion of empathy, that does not make them mentally ill. Most people in prisons are not sociopaths, either.

You exhibit similiar behavior when you say that if you found out there was no god then you wouldn’t have a problem mistreating people.

If there were no G-d, there would be no such thing as “mistreating” people. One persons opinion would be as good as another. Unless you assume that your opinion of morals is a basis to apply to everyone, but then why not stick with mainstream Christian morality? I much prefer G-ds morality to a persons

You said that god said something in the various books but what is in the books is what people said that god said.

I actually said.

Insofar as I accept the veracity of the books in the collection we call the Bible. Yes, I am assuming that what G-d said in the various books, is what His opinion is.

See the bolded words? that means that I accept the claim that they are G-ds words. that doesn’t mean that I think G-d personally wrote them.

Yes.

Then why are we arguing about it? Every Catholic knows that G-d did not personally write all the books in the Bible.

 

[John21652]

When you too are finished, can we discuss what “the good” is?

Is there only one “good”, or many “goods”.

The thread heading seems to imply just one “good”.